I didn't know only poor people ate food and breathed air. Taxes have always been cut for the middle and lower classes along with corporations, so you fail there too.
Please remember the context "lobbying against x" so you don't keep embarrassing yourself. Examples:
Lobbying against health standards - corporations lobbying against health standards restricting the shit they can put into food to make it more cheaply
Lobbying against disclosure requirements - corporations lobbying against requirements to disclose the shit they put in their cheap food so even uneducated poor people can attempt to not poison their kids with the groceries they buy
Lobbying against taxes - corporations lobbying against taxes on their profits shifting the burden of paying for the government onto the middle class and poor
Lobbying against environmental regulations - corporations lobbying against regulations that prevent them from dumping chemicals or polluting the air in their environment which coincidentally is shared with poor communities since everyone with the means will get the fuck out of there
I'm not talking about your normal >$250k rich people. I'm talking about the extremely wealthy that use that wealth to influence the government in their favor. These people spend $10000/meal from private chefs. They don't live on wonderbread and fluff 3x/day. How many gazillionaires do you know that live near paper plants?I didn't know only poor people ate food and breathed air. Taxes have always been cut for the middle and lower classes along with corporations, so you fail there too.
I don't use ignore lists. I come here to point out gaping holes in Republican logic.
That doesn't mean I can't highlight, point and laugh.You don't understand. They have a vested interest in ignoring the facts, usually a financial interest.
You should put these people on ignore man.
You don't understand. They have a vested interest in ignoring the facts, usually a financial interest.
That doesn't mean I can't highlight, point and laugh.
Yet here you are, a Republican, arguing that it is not happening, despite the fact that the wealth gap is growing. Now you want me to cite laws. Lobbying isn't always about creating new laws. It is often about preventing new laws. A normal, well adjusted person would already know this. However, if you want a citation, I don't have to go any further than the GWB tax cuts, which everyone knows overwhelmingly favored the super wealthy.Well seeing as how you haven't sighted even one single law passed to prove your theory it doesn't look like you have proved that the rich are currently screwing the poor and you certainly haven't proved Republicans and Fox News want us to believe that it isn't happening. Better luck next time with your talking points.
Re-read the chain of conversation before making dumbass comments. And BTW, yes, there are sweatshops in the world and poor people don't own them.
Speaks to their collective intellect
We get it, exploiting poor people is a-ok in your book. No wonder you are so anti-abortion. More kids for your sweatshops. :thumbsup: You aren't in the sneaker or clothing industry by any chance, are you?No, but they didn't force the people to be employed there either. The vast majority of the people who work there, I'd wager, would gladly accept the harsh working conditions over unemployment.
Yet here you are, a Republican, arguing that it is not happening, despite the fact that the wealth gap is growing. Now you want me to cite laws. Lobbying isn't always about creating new laws. It is often about preventing new laws. A normal, well adjusted person would already know this. However, if you want a citation, I don't have to go any further than the GWB tax cuts, which everyone knows overwhelmingly favored the super wealthy.
Is that your feeble attempt to rationalize the GWB tax cuts? Even GWB wasn't stupid enough to try to cut taxes only for the rich. He had to throw a few scraps to the dogs to keep them from turning on him.But he cut middle and lower class tax rates as well. Better raise taxes on the poor to help them out because according to you cutting their taxes is screwing them.
Sigh....
We get it, exploiting poor people is a-ok in your book. No wonder you are so anti-abortion. More kids for your sweatshops. :thumbsup: You aren't in the sneaker or clothing industry by any chance, are you?
Excuse me for not respecting the guy who is arguing that the people that work in sweatshops are equally to blame for their working conditions. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.Yes, precisely. No point in trying to see your ideological foes as anything other than monsters. Much easier and lazier simply to dismiss them and insult them. I mean, they couldn't possibly have thought out their positions and hold to them out of a sense of justice, right?
You guys have some growing up to do.
Is that your feeble attempt to rationalize the GWB tax cuts? Even GWB wasn't stupid enough to try to cut taxes only for the rich. He had to throw a few scraps to the dogs to keep them from turning on him.
Matt1970: I get $300/year while Billionaires get millions more, seems legit.
Oh I am sorry, let me rephrase.No, when you give money to two different people, just because one person got less than the other doesn't mean they are screwed. It isn't giving to people anyways, it is a reduction in what is being taken from them. If someone only makes 20,000 a year, the government isn't even going to take anything from them in income taxes. The rich guy on the other hand may be paying millions in taxes. Somehow you see that as the Government screwing the guy only making $20,000.
Excuse me for not respecting the guy who is arguing that the people that work in sweatshops are equally to blame for their working conditions. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
Their current offer is starvation. How kind of you to offer a way to work themselves to death so they can starve more slowly.If a sweatshop opened in your hometown, would people be flocking to work there?
No.
Then why do they do it in other countries?
Because they want to. Because it's better than what they are currently offerred.
Wrong. If it is wrong to do it here, it is wrong to do it in other countries.It's not fair or honest to apply 1st world standards of working conditions to developing countries. Would these people be better off unemployed? Is that even their choice to make?
[/B]Their current offer is starvation. How kind of you to offer a way to work themselves to death so they can starve more slowly.
Wrong. If it is wrong to do it here, it is wrong to do it in other countries.
You've devolved into your usual use of straw men, just one more reason I don't respect you. Asking for humane working conditions is not asking for mansions.Yes, how awful. We've given them an alternative to starvation; some means of achieving a higher standard of living for themselves and their children, and you sneer that we're not buying them a mansion.
Huh. I thought you guys were against applying our morality to other people?
You've devolved into your usual use of straw men, just one more reason I don't respect you. Asking for humane working conditions is not asking for mansions.
As for applying morality, you still don't get it. Punishment for murder is a way to apply morality, yet I don't think even the farthest left liberal would be against it. "We guys" are against using bad logic when applying morality.
Never mind the inaccuracies in it, it shows a rich guy pissing all over the working class. Disgusting. Unions should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGNq87d-WU4
I honestly have never seen someone try to view sweatshop situations with a 'glass is half full' perspective. You are a very, very sick person. I guess Michael Vick was a good guy because at least his dogs weren't starving, right?No, but it requires completely overlooking the context of the job they've taken. They've been offered something far better than they're existing conditions, and you guys find something to complain about anyway. It's like complaining that the civil war ended slavery but didn't fix future civil rights issues.
Once again, the howl is against applying morality not based on logic.Right, and whenever a political opponent uses that argument, the inevitable howl is that you're against people imposing their morality on others.
I honestly have never seen someone try to view sweatshop situations with a 'glass is half full' perspective. You are a very, very sick person. I guess Michael Vick was a good guy because at least his dogs weren't starving, right?
Once again, the howl is against applying morality not based on logic.
Excuse me for not respecting the guy who is arguing that the people that work in sweatshops are equally to blame for their working conditions. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.